Although the No Child Left Behind Act went into effect nationally last year, some education advocates say more can be done to ensure a good education for all of America’s children.
Some say school vouchers should be implemented in public and private schools, to be exact.
Clint Bolick from the Institute for Justice spoke at The University of Memphis Fogelman Executive Center Feb. 13 concerning his fight for school vouchers. The lecture was followed by a panel discussion between three U of M faculty members, including Rodney Smith from the Cecil C. Humphrey School of Law, and Dennie Smith and Jeffrey Hawkins, both from the College of Education.
Vouchers have been a proposed solution and serious threat to public schools and the problems associated with them for over 12 years. They work similarly to the school choice program offered by No Child Left Behind, in which students attending failing public schools have the choice to attend other public, charter, alternative or magnet schools.
The difference is the NCLB Act does not offer the option for tax dollars to be allotted to private sectarian schools in addition to other public schools. Several U.S. cities have implemented the plan since the 2001 Supreme Court ruling in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris in a 5-4 vote which found the school choice program, including vouchers, “did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and is, therefore, constitutional.” The Establishment Clause is also known as the “separation of church and state” clause.
In the voucher system, eligible students, defined by residence location and family income, could direct a portion of their state education funds as full payment of tuition at participating private schools.
This would mean students in low-income families would have the opportunity to attend any private schools that participate in the program, while paying no more than the taxes they would ordinarily pay for a public education at a failing school, Bolick said.
But despite the problems with education and funding in Tennessee and in the Memphis City School system, vouchers have never been implemented in this state and may never be, according to Dennie Smith.
“The state legislature would have to pass the right kind of law, and there would have to be local laws passed, too, so it gets complicated,” Smith said.
Still, Smith said he approves of vouchers, and of placing more authority over education in the hands of the individual schools, principals and parents.
“I think that instead of consolidating the school systems, there should be a larger number of smaller school systems,” Smith said.
Hawkins disagreed with the voucher program, saying the vouchers take away funds from public schools.
Public school teachers oppose vouchers, saying on the Tennessee Education Association Web site that what is really needed is smaller classes and more funding. Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen is also among those who oppose vouchers.
The arguments against vouchers include opposition to sending public funding to private schools and concerns that some of the brighter students will choose private schooling over public.
Bolick argued at the panel that vouchers force public schools to compete for students by raising their standards and providing better educational environments. He said in the cities using the voucher system, including Cleveland and Milwaukee, test scores improved after three to four years.
“When faced with the threat of vouchers, one Florida school system with 78 failing schools experienced an improvement of 100 percent,” Bolick said. “And the people in those schools repeatedly claimed that the reason they worked so hard to change their status was that they would have vouchers if they didn’t.”
